Talk:Cocker Spaniel/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After some initial confusion about the GA status of this article, I am now recommencing a GAR. Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally well written and easy to follow. The only slight quibble I have noticed is the article does occasionally flip between British and American spelling, for example “color” and “colour”, although this could very easily be fixed and is understandable given the time since the article attained GA status and the trans-Atlantic topic.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article generally follows both MOS:LAYOUT and WP:DOGS#Recommended article structure (the latter being developed after the article attained GA status).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All sources are appropriately cited, they generally adhere to WP:CITEHOW, providing enough information to appropriately verify their contents.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The later sections of the article cite a series of unreliable sources, breed club or gundog association websites are not reliable sources and are used quite widely ([1][2][3]). Additionally, the article cites a couple well short the standard, two that jump out are a content farm and a personal website. Further, the Kennel Club’s 2004 health survey, which is cited throughout the health section, explicitly cautions against placing too much emphasis upon their findings for individual breeds due to the very low number of respondents. Despite the in text attribution of the Kennel Club, due to that warning the survey should probably not be cites at all.
	2c. it contains no original research.	With the exception of a single claim in the popcult section that could easily be removed, there appears to be no OR per se (everything is cited). That being said the entire topic appears to something between WP:SYNTH or a WP:CFORK of English Cocker Spaniel and American Cocker Spaniel. Most of the sources only discuss one of the two breeds, of those sources that do discuss both they focus on one breed and merely mention the other. Whilst the article does not explicitly claim to be about a dog type, its existence gives that impression, yet there are no sources to support such an article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Done Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicates that there exists a 97% match of content with two websites that appear to be mirrors of this article. Dab Solver indicates no disambiguation issues. Checklinks indicates no link issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Of real concern, the article focuses almost entirely on the show lines of the two breeds and makes almost no mention whatsoever of their continued widespread use as gundogs for which ample sources exist.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Appropriate amount of detail given.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The major balance is between the two breeds which is fine. Given concerns already raised above at 3a this could arguably be a no.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Edits over the past 12 months appear to be largely vandalism & reverts, bot updates, and minor edits. Done
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately this article falls short of GA status. It is with regret that I make this assessment as the editor who raised it to GA status is one I admire greatly. Cavalryman (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Before making an overall assessment I invite any others to make comment on any of my assessments above. Cavalryman (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Could an editor with greater expertise in this area please review what is occurring in the 2d? Perhaps William Harris? Cavalryman (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

2d addressed as requested. William Harris (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3a is what I have noticed when reading through this article. In a lot of countries spaniels are still very popular with hunters. Not to mention their long history and origins of real working dogs. Should there be a section added covering this aspect?--LoraxJr 19:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]